If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Seizing property involved in drug traffic has been around for decades. Under certain conditions where the property is being used to commit a crime it makes sense. The problem is how easy it is to abuse these laws and the difficulty of citizens to contest the forfeitures in court.

For the guy who had $2400 cash seized solely on the officers assumption that he must be intending to buy drugs with it, he could contest it but the court costs would end up costing more and there is a good chance he will lose anyways depending on the judge.

Comment

Seizing property involved in drug traffic has been around for decades. Under certain conditions where the property is being used to commit a crime it makes sense. The problem is how easy it is to abuse these laws and the difficulty of citizens to contest the forfeitures in court.

For the guy who had $2400 cash seized solely on the officers assumption that he must be intending to buy drugs with it, he could contest it but the court costs would end up costing more and there is a good chance he will lose anyways depending on the judge.

Another related videos:

The way I see it, it violates some fundamental rights of the US citizens, can't it be questioned as unconstitutional or something?

Comment

The way I see it, it violates some fundamental rights of the US citizens, can't it be questioned as unconstitutional or something?

It can and is being questioned by some groups like the ACLU but it is very unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional. The constitution is subject to interpretation. The forfeiture of certain property has been enforced through civil process before so it does have some historical context.

These laws are being abused and in need of reform but this reform will probably have to come through political pressure rather than the courts. The main abuse right now is cops robbing people of cash during traffic stops.

Comment

Well, cops don't put it into their wallets, however I think there should be a limit for police to retain such 'evidences'. Otherwise every 'robbed' person is obliged to sue the state for getting their property back.
You want your money back, you need more money for the court and lawyer.

Comment

It can and is being questioned by some groups like the ACLU but it is very unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional. The constitution is subject to interpretation. The forfeiture of certain property has been enforced through civil process before so it does have some historical context.

These laws are being abused and in need of reform but this reform will probably have to come through political pressure rather than the courts. The main abuse right now is cops robbing people of cash during traffic stops.

Well i'm not Supreme Court, but to me it's evident. 5th Amendment

No person shall be (..) deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...